Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Monday, April 30, 2007

Reggie Is Back, Villaraigosa Dodges May Day Protests

By Walter Moore, Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles, MooreIsBetter.com.

Reggie the Alligator, reports Channel 11, is back and bigger than ever. I say call Jack Bauer.

You may see the alligator tomorrow, but you won't spot the Mayor. Villaraigosa hopes the national media will forget his whole "clean your toilets" thing because, really, that sort of thing is not vice-presidential.

But neither does our Mayor -- or our "alcalde," as he calls himself during the Spanish portion of the infernal info-mercial you must endure every time you dial 3-1-1 -- want to alienate his compadres at Mecha, MALDEF and La Raza. So what was his "solution?" Get out of town! Seriously: he strategically chose to leave town today to avoid having to appear at, or explain his absence from, the May Day protests. Call it the all-things-to-all-people approach.

By the way, for those who still don't "get it" at the L.A. Times, illegal immigration is ALREADY a crime. So please, for the love of Mike, stop saying that the proposed federal legislation last year would have "criminalized" illegal immigration. It's already criminalized -- already a crime.

Anyway, let's hope the streets are as empty as they were last year. That light traffic, by the way, is what we would experience if we repealed Special Order 40 and started cooperating with ICE to enforce federal immigration laws.


James Cleary, 80

Former California State University at Northridge President James Cleary, who served as the first leader of the college died April 28 at the age of 80.

Cleary’s began at the university in 1969 when the school was still named San Fernando Valley State College. He served for the next two decades as the college grew in size and stature.

Cleary died in Boise, Idaho where he moved with his wife Mary following his retirement in 1992. Mary Cleary died in 2002.


contact info and donations at www.zumatimes.com

ZUMA DOGG has obtained a complaint to be filed regarding with Building and Saftey, that I understand they agreed to hear, regarding Dirt Burnell -- a six home housing project that this complaint claims is being built under fraudulant permits.

Additionally, this is the same parking lot Captain Jack has been parrotting about on this blog for many a month, now, savvy.
So besides this ACTION TO REVOKE from this fine group of folks, you have, "Come now, ye plaintiffs" being shouted from Captian Jack's barge.

HERE'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS COMPLAINT: Planning, after being specifically told about the fraud, did nothing, and furthermore, issued the last clearances that allowed the building permit to be issued. Councilmembers hands are tied because the decision is not before council; it's all tied up in bureaucracy. But Building and Safety agreeing to hear the "complaint"/"appeal", means it COULD eventually go to Council, if appealed high enough. (And if we're talking fraudulant permits, why wouldn't it be?)

Request for City Building and Safety Action to Revoke Building Permit Obtained Through Fraud and Artifice on City Officials

1657 Burnell Drive
Permit No. 0510 10000 01662
Permit No. 06041 9000 29765
Permit No. 06030 10000 03723


A speculation developer named Michael Zenon assembled nine lots in a row along “dirt” Burnell Drive in the Mount Washington area. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) a project that involves more than three single-family houses does not qualify for a Categorical Exemption under the CEQA Guidelines. Under the California Environmental Quality Act and state guidelines, generally the construction of 3 or fewer single family homes, unless one of five exceptions apply, will not trigger an obligation of the lead agency to conduct an Initial Study to assess potential significant environmental impacts. (CEQA Guidelines 15303(a).) However, even one single-family house can trigger an obligation to prepare an Environmental Impact Report if one of the exceptions is triggered. (See exceptions listed at Guidelines 15300.2.) Zenon knew he planned to build between 6-8 and such a project would absolutely require the preparation of an initial study to determine if there were potential significant negative environmental effects. [CLICK READ MORE TO CONTINUE]

The site along “dirt” Burnell has a number of obvious serious environmental issues. Having knowledge of these issues, Zenon set about to manipulate the nominal title of a portion of the lots by selling or transferring title to a passive partner, Roman Z. Phifer, a former NFL player who is not known to be an independent real estate developer. Using these different titled owners, he submitted applications for three houses of the four lots he transferred to Roman Phifer. Zenon waited two months and then sent his employee to file applications for three more house applications under his company’s name. On all six of these houses, he and his design/construction company was the project applicant and owner’s representative. All six houses in a row along “dirt” Burnell Drive constitute a single project.

The applications Zenon filed omitted any disclosure to the City of the existence of the other five related projects. The applications actively misrepresented the street in front of the lots as 30 feet wide with “curb” when in fact, it was a “dirt” unimproved road. Each application also actively misrepresented the number of trees and actively concealed from the City that the overwhelming majority of the trees were native California Black Walnut trees, an endangered plant community. The combined effect of his fraudulent actions to run the houses through the planning process resulted in three of the six houses receiving Project Permit Approvals without ANY environmental review of the potential impacts or the imposition of proper mitigation measures to protect surrounding neighbors.

Notice of these three house approvals went to adjoining landowners under City Code, but in fact, only one or two adjoining properties were owned by someone other than Zenon or his partner. The Project Permit Determinations for these three permits were mailed to the wrong neighborhood council so the adjoining neighbors were denied due process of law because they were given no meaningful means to know of and file a timely appeal of the three approvals.

Months after appeal periods expired for these permits, the adjoining landowners first learned of the approvals and the Mount Washington Homeowners Alliance investigated. The investigation revealed the manipulation of the title to the property and submission of only three houses at a time under differing owner names. All of this fraud was described in a detailed letter to the City Planning Department who failed to read the letter or take action to protect the adjoining community by revoking the permits. In October 2006, the MWHA arranged an on-site meeting with City planners and representatives from the office of Jose Huizar. Despite promises by City planners to read the MWHA’s letter, on November 8, 2006, the same planners issued the final planning clearances that enabled Mr. Zenon to get the building and grading permits issued for 1657 Burnell Drive.

Because the entire approval process for this house is tainted by the fraud of Michael Zenon on City Planners, all city approvals are legally null and void. Zenon never obtained a lawful set of City approvals and the City of Los Angeles has the authority, indeed the duty, to protect the adjoining homeowners by revoking all approvals based upon fraud. This is consistent with well-established California case law that a vested right to build a project only occurs when an owner obtains a lawfully issued permit and begins construction. Although Zenon has begun construction, the neighborhood has been irrevocably harmed by the lack of site-specific mitigation measures and native trees have been cut down and maimed by shoddy work of the developer. This project might qualify for completion in the future, but at the present time the developer is building under City approvals vitiated with the initial fraudulent actions of Michael Zenon and his agents. The approvals must be immediately revoked and a proper public review process initiated to assure appropriate protections of the environment and the surrounding community.


Initial Assembly of Title to Nine Lots in a Row

On August 13, 1997, March 25, 2003, and July 16, 2003 various owners of vacant lots along Burnell Drive in the Mount Washington area transferred their interests to Michael Zenon, a speculation real estate developer who has constructed other speculation houses in the area. Additionally, on June 24, 2003 an owner transferred his interest to an entity called “Brunell Properties LLC” for one other lot. (This appears to a misspelled name of “Burnell Properties LLC” a company formed by Zenon to hold and develop 9 or more lots along “dirt” Burnell Drive). The addresses and lot numbers and title owner as of March 30, 2004 were as follows:

Lot 406 – 1657 Burnell Drive – Michael V. Zenon
Lot 405 – 1651 Burnell Drive – Michael V. Zenon
Lot 404 – 1647 Burnell Drive – Michael V. Zenon
Lot 403 – 1641 Burnell Drive – Michael V. Zenon
Lot 402 – 1637 Burnell Drive – Michael V. Zenon
Lot 401 – 1629 Burnell Drive – Michael V. Zenon
Lot 400 – 1619 Burnell Drive – Michael V. Zenon
Lot 399 – 1607 Burnell Drive – Brunell Properties LLC (Deed has misspelled name)
Lot 398 – 1601 Burnell Drive – Michael V. Zenon

(Copies of the relevant deeds that show how Zenon assembled all of these properties into his control are attached in Exhibit 1).

On March 30, 2004, Michael V. Zenon executed deeds that transferred his interest, or in the case of Lot 399, his company’s interest, in the lots to these other persons or entities:

Lot 406 – 1657 Burnell Drive – Burnell Properties LLC
Lot 405 – 1651 Burnell Drive – Burnell Properties LLC
Lot 404 – 1647 Burnell Drive – Burnell Properties LLC
Lot 403 – 1641 Burnell Drive – Burnell Properties LLC
Lot 402 – 1637 Burnell Drive – Burnell Properties LLC and on to Roman Z. Phifer
Lot 401 – 1629 Burnell Drive – Burnell Properties LLC and on to Roman Z. Phifer
Lot 400 – 1619 Burnell Drive – Burnell Properties LLC and on to Roman Z. Phifer
Lot 399 – 1607 Burnell Drive – Roman Z. Phifer
Lot 398 – 1601 Burnell Drive – No action. Remained in name of Michael V. Zenon

(Copies of the relevant deeds that show how Zenon transferred some of the lots into his controlled limited liability corporation and some of the lots into the name of his passive business partner, Roman Phifer are attached in Exhibit 2.)

Every speculation developer like Michael Zenon knows that a multi-house project above the state law threshold of three houses will trigger greater environmental review and possibly the imposition of mitigation measures to protect surrounding landowners from negative environmental impacts of the project. Every speculation developer knows that if he can submit house projects as single, stand alone projects, each could qualify for a Categorical Exemption from any environmental review at all and cumulative impact review might be completely avoided. (This is especially true because City of Los Angeles review processes for single-family homes also fail to consider routinely the 5 exceptions under the CEQA statute that may take even a single house out of the Categorical Exemption and require further review.)

Anyone looking at the “dirt” Burnell Drive area would observe the following potential environmental issues:

There is no improved street at all and thus, the whole project would require completion of a new public street, water lines, sewer lines, storm sewer drains, public street lighting, and curbs. This street deadends with no second outlet for fire and safety protection.
Any roadway constructed will include steep grades which will concentrate runoff from homes and will require some type of drainage, possibly including the need for an easement on downhill properties for drainage.
There is a visible landslide halfway down the roadway.
There is obviously a woodland of endangered plant community, the California Black Walnut tree. There are at least 85 extremely mature Black Walnut trees, some measuring 30” around the trunk.
The street access to the site consists of a 16-foot wide roadway which is grossly substandard and steeply sloped.

Michael Zenon, as an experienced speculation developer, had to have known and recognized the serious environmental issues that would have to be examined if he applied to construct all 9 lots. He then took actions, which cumulatively resulted in the submittal of this seven-house project under different owner names, and then for each titled owner, he submitted three or less houses for City Planning approval. Although his scheme resulted in two different title owners of the 9 lots, Michael Zenon and his company, Design Controls Inc. handled the preparation and submittal of all six of the seven houses for which applications were filed to date. This was a scheme or artifice for Michael Zenon’s design/construction company to be the project applicant and owner’s representative on applications for seven houses next to each other on “dirt” Burnell, do all the design work, and manage all the construction.

There is overwhelming evidence in the case files for the six houses that Zenon submitted to the City that demonstrates that although nominal title to four of the nine lots were transferred to Roman Phifer, this was from the beginning and still is Michael Zenon’s construction project.

The record establishes that on March 30, 2004 Michael Zenon transferred title for seven of the nine lots from himself to a limited liability company owned by him called “Burnell Properties LLC.” The MWHA documented all of these transactions in its June 21, 2006 letter to the Planning Department. On the same day, he transferred title to three of those same seven lots and one other lot already titled in his company’s name from his company to Roman Z. Phifer.

Within four weeks after that, Roman Z. Phifer signed the “Owner’s Affidavit” on the City’s Master Application Form for three of the four lots Phifer now nominally owned. The application form showed Phifer was the owner but Design Control, Zenon’s design and construction company, whose address was identical to Burnell Properties LLC, was the applicant and owner’s representative.

On August 12, 2004, Zenon, on behalf of Phifer, filed applications for three nearly identical modern stucco houses. On that day, City staff filled out a Categorical Exemption form indicating the City’s staff’s determination that because less than four houses had been applied for, each house qualified for a Categorical Exemption. Although Phifer took title to four lots on Burnell, Zenon only submitted three houses because he presumably knew that if he submitted all four of Phifer’s lots at the same time, the City staff would have refused to issue a Categorical Exemption and ordered an initial study of environmental impacts.

It is significant that the City is well aware of the risk of fraudulent, incomplete or misleading applications. On the CEQA Categorical Exemption signed by the City planner on August 12, 2004, Zenon and Phifer were given the following notice:

“THE APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT HE OR SHE UNDERSTANDS THE FOLLOWING: Completion of this form by an employee of the City constitutes only a staff recommendation that an exemption from CEQA be granted. A Notice of Exemption is only effective if, after a public review and any required public hearings, it is adopted by the City agency having final jurisdiction (including any appeals) over the project application. If a CEQA exemption is found inappropriate, preparation of a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report will be required. IF THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT IS INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE SUCH ERROR OR OMISSION COULD INVALIDATE ANY CITY ACTIONS ON THE PROJECT, INCLUDING CEQA FINDINGS.”

Right below this warning, Michael Zenon printed and affixed his signature to the Categorical Exemption issued for each of the three Phifer houses. Michael Zenon signed each of these three Categorical Exemptions with knowledge that they were not the only houses for which applications were going to be submitted by his firm on the same paper street with obvious major environmental issues. Thus, the City gave fair warning to Zenon and Phifer that failure to disclose relevant information about the scope of the total seven-house project or potential impacts of a project could result in the City’s decision to require more environmental review or result in revocation of any City approvals including a building permit issued in error because of misleading or erroneous information in the application.

Thereafter, City Planners began processing the three Phifer houses (1637, 1629, and 1619 Burnell) under the Categorical Exemptions.

After he had gotten Phifer’s three applications underway, Zenon waited a little over two months and then prepared the applications for three more single-family house projects on “dirt’ Burnell. These applications were on behalf of Burnell Properties LLC, Michael Zenon’s own limited liability corporation formed to hold title. Again, on each of these three applications, Design Control Inc., and Michael Zenon were the applicant and owner’s representative for these three houses.

Once the paperwork was all ready to take to the City’s public counter, Michael Zenon DID NOT walk into the City offices to make the application himself. After all, two months before, he had personally walked Phifer’s three houses through the application process at the Public Counter. Planners at the counter might remember his face from previous projects. Instead he sent a man named Roger P. Arquinez to walk the next three houses through the Public Counter process on behalf of Michael Zenon’s companies. From his action of carrying these applications into the City Public Counter, Arquinez acted as Zenon’s authorized employee or representative, particularly because his telephone number listed on City documents is Zenon’s business phone number. Arquinez signed the same Categorical Exemption acknowledgements for Zenon just as Zenon personally signed on behalf of Phifer. Thus, Zenon is charged with knowledge that any misrepresentations and omissions on the applications would subject the project to greater environmental review or invalidation of any City approvals if it later were revealed the applications were erroneous or misleading.

Thereafter, City planners began review of the three Zenon houses (1657, 1651, and 1641) under these three additional Categorical Exemptions. At this point, Zenon and his company, Design Control Inc. were the Applicant and Owner’s Representative for six houses in a row on “dirt’ Burnell Drive.

Identical Omissions And Misleading Information On All Six Applications

A review of the applications filed by Michael Zenon on behalf of himself and Roman Phifer reveal some obvious misrepresentations about the environmental setting. On the three applications Zenon prepared for Phifer’s houses, Phifer signed the affidavit. On the three applications for his own three houses, Zenon signed the owner’s affidavit. The owner’s affidavit states that all information on the Master Land Use Permit Application and the attached Request for Determination are “true and correct to the best of my knowledge” and signature in front of a notary is required under penalty of perjury. Despite this sworn affirmation, all six applications prepared under Zenon’s supervision included glaring omissions or misleading statements that had the effect and must be presumed were intended to mislead City planners from ordering proper environmental review and imposition of proper mitigation measures. The moment these applications were submitted to the City, the permits were tainted with Zenon’s fraud:

On every application, the Master Land Use Permit Application Question #5 requires the applicant to “List any related or pending case numbers relating to this site that have been filed with the Planning Department:” On every application, Zenon not only failed to list the other two houses being submitted the same day, but he failed to notify the City Planning Department of the other houses submitted on the same paper street for which his company was preparing plans, preparing applications, or had already filed applications. In other words, the City imposed an affirmative duty on Zenon as the Applicant for all six of these houses to disclose related development projects and he intentionally and knowingly omitted this information in a scheme or device to deprive the City of all the information required to determine the proper level of environmental review. This omission led the City to erroneously recommend and begin processing each individual house as a separate project instead of considering the potential cumulative impacts of the WHOLE project (a project of at least six houses and perhaps eventually as many as eight houses in the end).

On every application, Zenon claimed that the Street Width was “30 feet measured from curb” In fact, “dirt” Burnell is a totally unimproved street that cannot be driven safely by a vehicle and there is no paving and no curbs. The check marking of the word “curb” by Zenon was clearly intended to mislead the City planner into thinking this was merely a single house being added to an existing improved street that was 30 feet wide.

On every application, Zenon listed fewer trees than the number of actual trees on the lot.

On every application, Zenon listed some number of trees as “Significant” and absolutely never did he list any of the trees as “Native” trees. Because the native California Black Walnut is a threatened plant community, the failure to list the existence of any Native trees meant that City planners would not be alerted to the presence of a particularly mature stand of California Black Walnut trees on these lots. In fact, the site is overgrown with a dense canopy of Black Walnut Trees and the application fails to disclose the presence of this significant environmental condition. Mr. Zenon is alleged to have built other speculation houses in the Mount Washington Glassell Park Specific Plan area and this blatant misrepresentation of the status of the trees on the properties is circumstantial evidence of an intentional effort to mislead City officials.

On every application, Zenon represented that no grading or construction activity would occur within the driplines of a Native or Significant Tree, yet later studies of the lots showed that many trees not proposed to be cut down and removed from the lots were adjacent to the proposed house, drainage or other construction proposed for the property.

On every application, Zenon represented that the adjoining houses were “bungalows or contemporary style.” But in fact, there are no adjoining houses except the identical, cookie cutter, “modern” houses Zenon was proposing and that fact was not disclosed to the City planners at all.

(Compare all six Master Land Use Permit Application Forms, Mount Washington/Glassell Park Specific Plan Project Permit Application Determination Request Forms, and Categorical Exemptions attached for each house in Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.)

The cumulative effect of these serious omissions and affirmatively misstated status of the adjoining street and types of trees on the properties was substantially misleading to City Planning staff.

What Did City Planning Know and When Did It Know It?

There is some evidence City Planners realized that there were more than three houses in this overall project but passively did nothing to correct the lack of any environmental review. Apparently, the house plans submitted by Zenon for the six houses were substantially the same. One of the critical elements of the Mount Washington/Glassell Park Specific Plan is the requirement that each house significantly differ from others in order to preserve the unique architectural diversity of the neighborhood. As City planners reviewed some of Zenon’s houses, they must have realized that there were three other houses under review under Phifer’s name. This is evidenced by a December 17, 2004 Notice of Suspension of Zenon’s permit applications for 1641 and 1651 Burnell Drive. The reason for the suspensions cited by City planners was that the house at 1641 was “The architectural style and design elements for the subject property is similar to the proposed projects at 1619, 1629, and 1637 N. Burnell Drive.” (See Exhibit 9.) These were the three houses Zenon was proposing as applicant for Roman Phifer so in December 2004, City planners were aware that six houses in a row were being developed by Michael Zenon.

City Planning Issues Approvals for Two Of Three Phifer Houses One Month Later

The unfortunate reality is that at the City of Los Angeles, once a Categorical Exemption is issued for a single-family home on the FIRST day the application is filed, most planners put the obligations under CEQA out of mind. The City’s processes call for the evaluation of environmental impacts on the day the application is first filed with the City instead of when the application is deemed complete. The failure of City processes to require re-evaluation or evaluation of environmental issues once the file is deemed complete and ready for planning review means there is a substantial risk of error in the review of environmental issues. And because there is no incentive for a planner to “go back” and reconsider environmental issues when the application has truly been made complete, most planners simply say to themselves: “This is categorically exempt, I can go ahead a approve this project.”

On January 18, 2005, just 30 days after notice to Zenon that 1641 was “too similar to 1637, 1629 and 1619 Burnell,” the City Planning Department issued the Project Permit Determination for 1619 Burnell. A few days later, on January 21, 2005, despite the City determination in December 2004 that 1641, 1637, 1629 and 1619 were too similar in design, the City issued a Project Permit Determination for the house next door at 1629 Burnell without resolving the similarity of design question.

Three Weeks Later Planning Approves One of Zenon’s Houses

On February 14, 2005, the Planning Director issued a Project Permit Determination for 1657 Burnell, the site currently under construction.

The Categorical Exemptions issued by the City for each of these houses in reliance on the materially misleading applications filed by Michael Zenon and his authorized agents were the supporting environmental document. There was no environmental review conducted due to the fraud on the City.

Due Process Failures Regarding Notice

The City supposedly mailed notice of the Project Permit Determinations to adjoining landowners based upon mailing labels provided by Michael Zenon. We have not had an opportunity to inspect the labels used but we know that a civil rights attorney who lives next door to the 1657 Burnell project, the one and only occupied property adjacent to these projects is confident that she received no notice or copy of the Project Permit Determination. (See her environmental comment letter that denies she was ever notified. Exhibit 10.) Additionally, we expect the adjoining landowner on Bridgeport to also deny that she ever received such project notice. This is hardly surprising because in fact, most of the adjoining landowners were Zenon himself or Roman Phifer. If notices were in fact mailed, under the City’s notice ordinance, most would have been mailed to Zenon and Phifer as adjoining lot owners. The City’s notice process denied due process to the nearby landowners and residents because they received no timely notice of the decisions and were not given a meaningful opportunity to appeal the decisions before expiration of the City appeal period and the indeed, even the 180 day CEQA statute of limitation.

The community also reports that they never observed the posting of the required Notice of Intent signs for most of these projects. After the City approvals were issued and the appeal period expired, neighbors documenting the trees on the property found some Notice of Intent signs down the hillside, in some cases lying on the ground or posted behind trees.

The City also mailed notice to the Glassell Park Neighborhood Council. This was incorrect, as the property lies within the boundaries of the Greater Cypress Park Neighborood Council, not Glassell Park. The failure to give notice to the proper neighborhood council violated the intent of the City Charter in forming neighborhood councils in order to give communities a voice in land use decisions. Thus, in this case, the developer can demonstrate absolutely no notice at all to the community was given.

Phifer Borrows Construction Funds for Unlawfully Obtained Permit Determinations

On August 24, 2005, six months after getting approvals for two of his lots, Roman Z. Phifer transferred his four lots received from Michael Zenon to a company called “Haven Hill Estates LLC.” Thus, by the end of these transactions, vested title was as follows:

Lot 406 – 1657 Burnell Drive – Burnell Properties LLC
Lot 405 – 1651 Burnell Drive – Burnell Properties LLC
Lot 404 – 1647 Burnell Drive – Burnell Properties LLC
Lot 403 – 1641 Burnell Drive – Burnell Properties LLC
Lot 402 – 1637 Burnell Drive – Haven Hill Estates LLC
Lot 401 – 1629 Burnell Drive – Haven Hill Estates LLC
Lot 400 – 1619 Burnell Drive – Haven Hill Estates LLC
Lot 399 – 1607 Burnell Drive – Haven Hill Estates LLC
Lot 398 – 1601 Burnell Drive – Michael V. Zenon

On September 1, 2005, Phifer signed notes and Deeds of Trust on behalf of Haven Hill Estates LLC obtained a construction loan for ALL FOUR LOTS he obtained from Zenon including lot 399 for which no application had yet been made. (See Exhibit 11.)

Suspension of Other Permit Applications for Identical or Similar Designs

Ultimately, the project applications for 1637 Burnell (titled in Phifer), 1641 Burnell and 1651 Burnell (titled in Zenon) were suspended due to identical or substantially similar designs in violation of the Specific Plan.

December 2005 Neighbors Learn of the City Approvals

Neighbors first learned of the Project Permit Determinations nearly a year after the Planning Director’s Project Permit Approvals and after the expiration of the statute of limitation for a CEQA lawsuit. The MWHA began an investigation. In a telephone conversation between the City planner and Martha Esplange-Alvarez, Land Use Chair of the MWHA, he indicated that if he had known that Michael Zenon was constructing a seven (7) house project with partner Roman Phifer, he would have required the preparation of an Initial Study and more environmental review from the start.

Council Office Supports EIR for Entire “Dirt” Burnell Project

In March 2006, the MWHA representatives and neighbors personally met with Councilmember Jose Huizar and he agreed that there were too many potentially significant environmental issues for issuance of permits based upon Categorical Exemptions or even a Mitigated Negative Declaration. He submitted a letter to the Planning Department demanding that an EIR be conducted for the Burnell properties.

July 21, 2006 Letter of MWHA to Mayor, Planning Director, Planning Department and East Los Angeles Planning Commission

After completing an exhaustive title search, the MWHA on July 21, 2006, submitted a comprehensive 9-page letter and extensive documentation detailing how Michael Zenon shifted title to some of his Burnell lots to Phifer and asked for the City to revoke the Project Permit Determinations by the Planning Director. (See Exhibit 12 which includes a copy of the letter without most exhibits except a useful map of the site.) Attached to the letter were copies of all the relevant deeds showing the chain of title and the Secretary of State registrations for Design Control Inc. and Burnell Properties LLC at the same Culver City address of Zenon. This letter was sent to the Mayor, the Director of Planning, the Planning Commission, the East Los Angeles Planning Commission, Councilmember Reyes’ office, Councilmember Huizar’s office and it was addressed and sent to Jimmy Aguiano and Jose-Carlos Romero, the two City Planners with direct responsibility for this project. In the eight months since the submission of this thoroughly documented letter to all these City officials, not a single public official responded to the letter or even acknowledged in writing receipt of the letter.

During this same time period, MWHA representatives sent letters and e-mails to the City Planning Department demanding to be notified of all actions on all of the Burnell Drive lots.

On-Site Visit With Planning Officials and Council Office

After getting no response from any City of Los Angeles representative for three months, the Martha Esplange-Alvarez, Land Use Chair of the MWHA, arranged a meeting at the Burnell site with Jimmy Aguiano and Jose-Carlos Romero of City Planning, Frank Aguirre and Luis Hernandez of the Council District 14 Field Office, and Daniel Wright, Martha Esplange-Alvarez, and Daniel Marlos of the MWHA. This meeting occurred in October of 2006. Those attending the meeting walked the Burnell roadway and discussed the content of the MWHA’s letter. Both City Planners indicated that they had not yet read the MWHA letter although it had been in their possession for more than three months. MWHA representatives reiterated their request that the three erroneously approved permits be revoked on the ground that fraud and artifice had been used to improperly obtain them. MWHA emphasized the need for greater mitigation measures to protect the community and accurate information to determine the environmental impacts of the entire seven-house project.

Aguiano suggested that perhaps everyone could hope that the developer would not exercise the permit approvals as it had been nearly one and three-quarter years since the approvals. City Planning staff was uncertain whether they had the authority to revoke the permits because there had been no appeals filed and the permits had become “final.” MWHA reminded Planning staff that no one from the community could confirm that notice letters were received which is why there were no appeals. Not only were there fundamental due process problems with the notice but also City Planning staff admittedly issued the permits without knowing the full scope of the project. Aguiano and Romero promised that they would read the July 21, 2006 letter of the MWHA and look into the revocation as a proper remedy. MWHA never heard from anyone again. To the best of the knowledge of MWHA no one in the Planning Department ever took any action as a result of the personal meeting with Planning Department staff at the project site.

Planning Staff Issues Final Clearances of 1657 Burnell Drive Building Permit

On November 8, 2006, Aguiano, without ever getting back to the MWHA to address its concerns, issued the final clearance enabling Zenon to pull a building permit for the first lot, Lot 406 at 1657 Burnell Drive. By mid-November, the Zenon began erecting a construction fence around his three lots. On the day the construction fences were erected, the MWHA had a series of e-mail and telephone conversations with the City Planning staff, the City Planning Environmental unit, and the Council office. Understandably, after all the efforts to educate the Planning Department of the impact of the fraud and a personal meeting at the site, the MWHA representatives were very upset that the City staff would not provide the courtesy of a written response to the meeting before proceeding to issue clearances to allow the building permit to be issued.

Despite, MWHA insistent demands to the City to revoke the unlawfully obtained permits, the City Planning Department continued to be non-responsive. Further clearances were issued and in early December 2006, the developer’s crew started to cut down mature Black Walnut trees on lot 406 at 1657 Burnell Drive. By 1:00 p.m. on that day, at the request of the Council office, the City issued a stop work order until the developer could produce an arborist’s report that identified which trees were to be cut down. The City persisted in its refusal to issue a stop work order to investigate the alleged fraud that made all the prior permit approvals null and void.

The Other Two Permits Appear to Have Expired

The approvals for 1629 and 1619 Burnell were issued in January of 2005. By their own terms, the permits expired two years later in January 2007. The MWHA assumes that both of these permits have expired and require new applications for Project Permit Determinations. If the Planning Department has issued any extension of these approvals, the MWHA adds these approvals to those for which stop work orders and revocation of all approvals is requested.


All City Approvals for These Projects Are Tainted With The Developer’s Fraud And Black Letter California Case Law Obligates The City Of Los Angeles To Protect The Adjoining Community By Immediate Issuance of a Stop Work Order and Revocation Of All City Approvals for These Projects

Case law in California, established from the very beginning of the state, holds that fraud vitiates a transaction and is a defense against all claims in court. In the context of a sealed deed obtained through fraud, our Supreme Court observed:

“There is no particular sanctity about a sealed instrument, which will estop a party from alleging fraud in the execution, or in the obtaining of it, but on the other hand, fraud is a legitimate defence, at all times and in all proceedings – at least under our system.” Hopkins v. Beard (1856) 6 Cal. 664, 665.

This case is good law today. At all times and in all proceedings, the obtaining of something by fraud is always subject to cancellation because the fraud nullifies the transaction.

There is a recent 1992 case that is binding in Los Angeles County. The facts are identical to this case in that a developer used a fraudulent application to obtain a permit in a way intended to defeat required environmental review. In that case, a developer of a wireless antenna project, at a site in the middle of a residential neighborhood, fraudulently convinced the staff of the municipal approving authority that the new antenna construction was consistent with and could be approved under an existing conditional use permit of another antenna previously built on the hilltop site. The clear motivation of the wireless antenna developer was to obtain the project permit approval under a previously issued antenna permit so as to avoid the preparation of an environmental impact report under CEQA. Neighbors objected after construction began and appealed the case to the legislative body of the municipal authority urging that the building permit was unlawful. The authority agreed that its staff had been misled into issuing the permit but because the construction of the antenna was nearly complete, the authority concluded the permit was vested and could not be revoked. After an adverse trial court ruling, on appeal by the neighbors, the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal held that a permit obtained by fraud or error can never vest and therefore can be revoked at any time, even upon completion of the construction. The court of appeal reversed the trial court decision and invalidated the municipal authority’s determination that it had no authority to revoke the permit – obtained fraudulently for the specific purpose of avoiding environmental review under CEQA. As a result, the antenna was subject to an order of removal as having been unlawfully obtained.

Smith v. County of Santa Barbara (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 770 is this recent case. A review of the facts shows the essential similarity to Zenon’s case. There was a successful scheme or artifice that misled the approving authority to issue the permit in a way that specifically resulted in the avoidance of proper environmental review. In Smith, the appellate court succinctly summarized the facts that led to the erroneous issuance of the land use permit procured through fraud of the agent of the telecommunications company seeking to build three antennas in a residential district. We quote the facts as summarized by the Court:
“Several businesses have erected communication facilities on Gibralter Peak in Santa Barbara County. The land is zoned for single family residences, but communications facilities are allowed as a conditional use.
In 1984 a conditional use permit was granted to "Comsite/Bud-North Shore, Inc." to build "FM and TV Facilities" on a Gibralter Peak parcel. The permit made no reference to microwave or telephone communications.
Thereafter TMC Communications wanted to build a telephone microwave station on the parcel. TMC hired Raymond Yount, a former County employee familiar with County zoning regulations, to help it apply for the permits.
Instead of applying for its own conditional use permit, which would have required an environmental impact report, TMC sought to rely on the conditional use permit already obtained by Comsite. The County went along with TMC's plan. On December 10, 1987, the resource management department issued a land use permit for three towers with one microwave dish per tower. In issuing the permit, resource management found that TMC's project was in "substantial conformity" with the existing conditional use permit.
On December 11, 1987, the building department issued a building permit. Eleven days later TMC's agent Yount submitted drawings to the building department showing a different shape to the antenna support towers and two microwave dishes per support tower instead of one. The drawings were labeled "revised structural details." Despite the drawings, Yount represented the total number of dishes would remain at three. The building department authorized the revisions, but, in fact, had no authority to authorize more dishes than the three that had been approved by resource management. TMC's agent Yount knew, or should have known, this.
When construction started, a neighboring property owner, Norman Smith, complained to the County. Based on the complaint and on evidence TMC was installing five instead of three dishes, the County issued a stop work order. Two weeks later the County rescinded the stop work order.
Smith appealed the validity of the permit and the withdrawal of the stop work order to the planning commission. After public hearings, the commission denied the appeal, finding that TMC had made substantial expenditures on a three-dish antennae system in reliance on the land use permit.
Smith appealed to the County board of supervisors. At the hearing, TMC's vice-president and chief technical officer, James Speirs, testified that TMC had installed five microwave dishes at Gibralter Peak and that the "removal of any of the dishes from Gibralter Peak will result in degraded service to our customers and would essentially cause us to be noncompetitive with other carriers in the area." He also testified that TMC had about $500,000 invested at the site, and that construction was about 90 percent complete when resource management issued its stop work order.
* * *
The board denied the appeal. It found that the land use permit was not in substantial conformity with the conditional use permit on which it was based, and that an environmental assessment should have been prepared prior to issuing a proper conditional use permit for TMC's project. Nevertheless, TMC expended substantial sums in good faith reliance on the land use permit, and thus has a vested right to maintain three antennas with one dish each. The harm to TMC if authority to operate the facilities were to be withdrawn would substantially outweigh any harm to the public or the environment.
Smith petitioned the superior court for a writ of administrative mandate. Smith appeals from the denial of the petition. (Id. at pp. 772-775; bold italic emphasis added).
When the Santa Barbara County Board of Commissioners found that the land use permit issued to TMC was “not in substantial conformity with the conditional use permit on which it was based,” the Board was saying that the developer’s permit had been issued in violation of the applicable law. The Board concluded that the permit was obtained by circumventing the substantive requirement to obtain a separate conditional use permit for the new towers and the purpose of avoiding a separate and new conditional use permit was to avoid having to prepare an initial study and potential environmental impact report under CEQA.

Despite, the correct finding by the County Board that the permit was illegally obtained by the fraud of TMA’s agent on the county Planning staff, the Board erred, according to the Court of Appeal, when the Board thought it was barred or “estopped” from asserting that violation of the law as a basis to override the substantial construction expense already invested in the property – some $500,000. Significantly, the Court of Appeal rejected the idea that TMC ever obtained a permit upon which it could legally rely to commence construction. While acknowledging that there are a narrow set of circumstances where a public entity can be estopped from asserting its zoning or other laws, the idea that an unlawfully obtained permit could ripen into a lawful one by merely beginning construction was not such a case.

The Court of Appeal said:
“The instant case would establish a broad precedent allowing government to operate in violation of its own laws.
It is not enough to say that public policy will not be adversely affected by the application of estoppel because TMC's [antenna] structure creates no health or environmental hazard. The point is that public policy may be adversely affected by the creation of precedent where estoppel can too easily replace the legally established substantive and procedural requirements for obtaining [zoning and building] permits. As the court in City of Imperial Beach v. Algert (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 48, 52 [19 Cal.Rptr. 144], stated, "each case [of governmental estoppel] must be examined carefully and rigidly to be sure that a precedent is not established through which, by favoritism or otherwise, the public interest may be mulcted or public policy defeated." (Cited with approval in City of Long Beach v. Mansell, supra, 3 Cal.3d 462, 495, fn. 30.)
Our decision here is in line with the vast majority of cases which hold that a governmental entity is not estopped from enforcing the law. (See, e.g., Pettitt v. City of Fresno (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 813, 820 [110 Cal.Rptr. 262]; Strong v. County of Santa Cruz (1975) 15 Cal.3d 720 [125 Cal.Rptr. 896, 543 P.2d 264]; Chaplis v. County of Monterey (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 249, 258-259 [158 Cal.Rptr. 395]; People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Ryan Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 804, 812-813 [114 Cal.Rptr. 499]; but see Anderson v. City of La Mesa (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 657, 661 [173 Cal.Rptr. 572].)” Id. at pp. 775-776
Thus, the Court of Appeal found that the artifice and fraud TMC practiced on the Santa Barbara County Planning officials could never ripen into an invincible permit. The Court of Appeal concluded that the County, upon discovery of the fraud, had the authority to take action to revoke the ill-begotten permits and require the applicant to start the planning approval process over again. Significantly, the Court of Appeal found that the fact that the antennas were 90% completed at a cost of $500,000 to be irrelevant where the permit was not ever lawfully issued. The Court of Appeal found that to hold otherwise would be to create an incentive for local government to operate illegally to issue permits in violation of the law on the premise that significant construction expenditures could turn an unlawfully obtained permit into a lawful one. This, the Court of Appeal refused to do.

The Smith case is on point with the Zenon case in one more important way: Mr. Smith challenged the issuance of the building permit and not the underlying discretionary decision approving the antenna which was implicitly supported with either a Categorical Exemption or a staff determination that issuance under the existing conditional use permit meant the project was exempt from CEQA. In Smith, despite the fact that the CEQA statute of limitation had expired, Smith successfully challenged the building permit after construction commenced. The Court of Appeal had no problem holding that the entire set of approvals were invalidated by the TMC scheme to mislead the county officials to avoid CEQA review, despite the fact that the CEQA statute of limitation expired before Smith even learned of improper permits. The same is true in the case of Zenon. There is some circumstantial evidence that Notice of Intent signs were posted way down a steep hillside behind trees. The City’s fatally flawed notice of the determinations meant no one in the affected community received actual notice. Zenon’s spider web of deceit eventually ended in three of the six applications being granted with no CEQA review at all. In this case too, the fact that the CEQA statute of limitation had expired before the neighbors even learned of the approvals is irrelevant because it is the fraud that vitiates the entire transaction. The law cannot reward Zenon for fraud. It is incumbent upon City officials to protect the integrity of its zoning and land use policy by complete revocation of all ill-begotten permits.

The Smith case is completely consistent with a related line of California cases. This line of cases hold that if a planning or building permit is lawfully issued, and the owner, in reliance on the permit begins to make significant expenditures, the permit becomes a vested right for the owner to complete the project as lawfully approved. In this line of cases, a municipal approval authority tried to apply a later enacted ordinance, law or rule to the project. These cases hold that once the owner, through significant construction expense, relies upon a lawfully issued permit, the owner shall be allowed to build in accordance with the prior zoning rule even though the municipal authority has subsequently changed the law. See for example, the California Supreme Court case of Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Commission (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 785, 791-800 where the Supreme Court, in an extended public policy discussion, held that until a developer obtains a lawfully issued final permit, even $2 million dollars spent on the entitlement process could not ripen into a vested right to build.

The Zenon case is conceptually indistinguishable from the binding precedent of the Smith and Avco cases. Zenon took a set of actions to manipulate land titles and the application process so as to obtain that to which he was not entitled: Project Permit Determinations for houses in a six house project with no environmental review at all. Just like TMC’s agent in Santa Barbara County, Zenon’s goal was violate the substantive disclosure requirements of the Mount Washington/Glassell Park Specific Plan regarding Native trees, to misrepresent the condition of the roadway, and fail to alert the City staff of the total number of houses in the project, all for the purpose of avoiding proper procedural environmental review (and possible mitigation measures). The Smith case teaches that Zenon’s illegally obtained permits could never, despite construction expense, ripen into a lawful permit. The Avco case teaches the flip side of Smith: until Zenon obtained a lawfully issued permit, costs expended could not ripen into an entitlement to build -- if the permit was never lawfully issued.

It is fundamental that neighbors and those living in a particular zoning district are entitled to expect the municipal zoning authority to properly enforce the zoning law enacted by the municipality for their protection and benefit and to properly enforce the state environmental laws for which the municipality is the Lead Agency. Leading national treatises on zoning law confirm that California law is in conformity with the universal rule in every other state:

“A permitee has no vested rights against the local government when the permit was procured through fraudulent misrepresentation or by any other impermissible means.

Generally, it is held that, where a permit has been invalidly issued; and, even though the later may have taken some action thereunder with the incurring of obligations, the permit may, nevertheless, be revoked by the local government upon its discovery of the illegal issuance. A permit for a use or structure prohibited by a valid zoning enactment, regulation or restriction is void, of no effect and generally subject to revocation. This is true although the permit was issued under a mistake of fact. The Vermont Court points out that, since permits for uses prohibited by zoning enactments are void, “such permit may be revoked not withstanding that the permittee may have acted on it, and any expenditures made in reliance upon such permit are made at his peril. The public has an interest in zoning which cannot be set naught by the unauthorized acts of its officers.” Antieu on Local Government Law, 2d Ed. §58.01[5] Revocation of Invalid Permits.

Another national treatise on Zoning Law is in accord with California:

“There is a long line of decisions holding that a permit holder acquires no vested right where the permit is issued in violation of the zoning ordinance. As one court said:

A municipal permit issued illegally or in violation of the law, or under a mistake of fact, confers no vested right or privilege on the person to whom the permit has been issued and may be revoked notwithstanding that he may have acted upon the permit; and expenditures made in reliance upon such permit are made at his peril.

A New York court held that no vested right was acquired when a permit was issued on a misstatement of fact. No vested right can be acquired when the building official issuing the permit is without power to do so or exceeds his or her authority.” Zoning Law and Practice, 4th Ed., Volume 2, E.C. Yokley, § 14.6.

The City of Los Angeles put Michael Zenon on notice when he signed the Categorical Exemption that all approvals could be invalidated by misleading or omitted information submitted to the City. This appeal calls the City at its word to protect its residents by meaning what it says in CAPITAL LETTERS on the Categorical Exemption Form: IF THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT IS INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE SUCH ERROR OR OMISSION COULD INVALIDATE ANY CITY ACTIONS ON THE PROJECT, INCLUDING CEQA FINDINGS.


The Mount Washington Homeowners Alliance and Daniel Marlos respectfully request that the City of Los Angeles do the following:

Immediately issue a stop work order commanding Michael Zenon and Burnell Properties LLC, and Design Control Inc. to halt work under the building permit and planning permit determination issued for 1657 Burnell Drive. The stop work order would preserve the status quo while the hearing process for this appeal of the Building Permit is heard by the City.
To invalidate and revoke all project approvals for all three unlawfully issued Project Permit Determinations.
Issue and order to Burnell Properties LLC to remove all improvements, replace all destroyed California Black Walnut trees, and restore the natural grade.



You've seen Captain Jack Sparrow drop all kinds of confusing Shakespeare sounding clues over some "constituent disastifaction" regarding some developmental challenges in CD 14 way back since Superbowl Sunday when it was reported that a certain CM flew to the big event to pick up some campaign contributions. And coincidentally, it appears as though the Florida developer who dontaed the money, may also have a bling-bling new high density condo to builld in the district.

As some of you know, ZD has a new "Bat Computer" and it kinda put things on a avalanche fast-track, and you can see it all unfold under the commnets section of this blog. Here's the lastest reply from Cpt. Jack to my message in a bottle to him:

At April 29, 2007 10:43 PM, Zuma Dogg said...
Is the question "Old Man Johnson" (Plaintiff) asked, about the dirt road development on Burnell? They laughed at him for questioning it, then Johnson found out they gave out fraudulent permits, and now he is gonna sue?

At April 29, 2007 10:47 PM, Captain Jack Sparrow said...
Good evening Zuma lad (tips hat and smiles):

Well done, lad. It's dedicated parkland being developed. Go back to your ZAPPER (ZD's Batcomputer) and ask about the three neighbourhood councils who wrote to a certain CM and cc'd his two pals requesting a STOP to the development. And then take a look at the building permits for all 6 or so of the houses. See anything interesting? Perhaps the name of a developer who donated to certain CM's campaigns? Something made three CM's look the other way when building permits were fraudulently issued, savvy? Was it that same something that got Old Man Johnson all riled up?

Now Zuma lad, I have three more words for you. Comes the plaintiffs.


Though building has begun on “Dirt Burnell”, construction is limited to a single address, ***** Burnell Drive, which is the lot closest to the paved intersection of Burnell Drive and Killarney Street and farthest from Elyria Canyon Park.

The first tangible signs that this development was going to have a severe negative impact on the neighborhood became evident in early January when a large crane parked on the dirt path and began to excavate the site from the unpaved street.

This crane was being operated in a reckless manner,coming dangerously close to power lines.

Additionally, the crane was parked in such a manner that local residents were unable to use the unpaved road to hike into Elyria Canyon Park, a common recreational activity for residents.

At this point, residents began to seek advice from the Council Office for clarification on whether vehicles should be permitted to park on this unpaved road during construction. There is no parking anytime on either side of the street on the block of Burnell Drive leading to the unpaved portion. [CLICK READ MORE -- IT GETS MORE HILARIOUSLY TRAGIC. THESE COUNCILMEMBERS MUST BE STOPPED!!! TOO BAD IT WILL TAKE THE LAW, INSTEAD OF THEIR OWN CONSCIOUS.]

Parking vehicles on the un-paved portion of the street will impact pedestrian traffic and possibly result in problems with emergency vehicle access should a fire erupt in Elyria Canyon Park.

Paul Habib in CD 14 Council Office did a site visit and requested that parking control begin to patrol the area to ensure that parking regulations were being followed.

The situation with construction vehicles only escalated on the morning of January 30, a Tuesday and trash collection day, when a cement mixer began to block the intersection.

This cement mixer not only impeded traffic flow, but it also prevented the trash collection truck from being able to reach the trash receptacles.

One truck was a problem, but soon a second cement truck arrived blocking even more
traffic early in the morning when residents needed to get to work.

Two trucks was bad, but a third cement truck
arrived a formed a queue on Burnell Drive in a clearly marked no parking zone.

For nearly 15 minutes, two trucks parked side-by-side preventing any vehicles from passing. Phone calls and emails to the Council Office resulted in Paul Habib quickly responding and contacting parking control.

Sadly, three parking control officers arrived just as the final cement truck departed after about three hours of impacting traffic flow.

Sergeant Barbara Hartsfield of parking control instructed two other officers to patrol the area on a regular basis.

She determined that parking was problematic on “Dirt Burnell” and residents are still awaiting a conclusion from the city regarding a request to formally post “No Parking” signs on the unpaved portion of the street.

The sergeant also advised residents to call a special number if any further problems developed.

Periods of marginal activity on the site continued with small crews and pick-up trucks, but no large vehicles.

On Monday afternoon, February 12, residents were once again made aware of problems with this ill-conceived development.

Two industrial tow trucks were at the scene, blocking the intersection, because a flatbed truck delivering construction materials to the site slid off the dirt road and stopped short of plunging down the steep embankment to Bridgeport Drive below.

It took several hours for the drivers from U.S. Tow to free the delivery truck from its precarious position.

Residents in the area understand that this is just the beginning of a long construction period with the potential for considerable negative impact and possibly serious accidents.

At the January meeting of the Mt. Washington Homeowners Alliance, the members voted
to fund $1500 toward legal council regarding “Dirt Burnell” in the hopes of preventing the other lots from being developed and possibly stopping the
current construction.

“Dirt Burnell” is a textbook example of the need for strict standards regarding cumulative impact
in the hillside communities of Los Angeles. The residents have also agreed to raise additional money toward legal council and hope that this will also send a message to all unscrupulous specula-
tion developers in the area.

At April 29, 2007 11:51 PM, Anonymous said...
Juan Carlos-Lacey
Consent to censure and three year bar.

Altered an account statement issued by his member firm employer and fabricated an approval signature of a purported manager in connection with an application for a loan with an outside lender.

Mayor Sam's Hotsheet for Monday

The 15th anniversary of the 1992 Riots is upon us. Has much changed in South Central Los Angeles? Martini Republic dismisses activist notions that blame liquor stores and pins it right on the money - lack of leadership. MR does however give kudos to athlete turned businessman Magic Johnson who put his money where his mouth is and has invested heavily in the community.

More after the jump...

Council Members Jose Huizar and Richard Alarcon are proposing an event waiver of $10,000 for an event called "Legalize My Parents." More racial politics above what folks in this city need. John and Ken are you listening?

Watch your wallet! The LA City Council is going to jack up more taxes, uh, I mean "fees."

Looks like Senator Hillary Clinton will get the endorsement of both Mayor Villaraigosa and his potential 2010 Gubernatorial rival, Gavin Newsom. Villaraigosa operative Ace Smith will run Clinton's campaign here in the Golden State.

The Daily News - once a staunch proponent for the San Fernando Valley and breaking up the LA Unified School District - has jumped into bed with Mayor Villaraigosa's plan to take over the district, including it's latest lame component a city "office" of Charter Schools. How about sticking to more police and filling the potholes and leave education to the professionals. LAUSD's problem is not who runs it but its quite simply too big.

It appears that the City of Los Angeles is working to get designer Kelly Wearstler's home office studio kosher with the law. This is a good move. Areas of Los Angeles could benefit in general from more business-friendly policies and in particular designers of all stripes. More design firms could be very beneficial to the city in helping to bring back local high-paying professional jobs lost in the financial sector and corporate headquarters.

An article in the Orange County Register about former KABC broadcaster Kevin James includes a mention of the Sister City and our online petition which has now reached over 500 signatures in support of James' efforts to find a new radio home.

Hundreds of citizens turned out for Richard Alarcon's nighttime Education and Neighborhoods Committe Meeting in Van Nuys last week. The community is split over an enclave of Van Nuys that wants to rename itself "Lake Balboa." Despite the turnout from the community, fellow committee members Jose Huizar and Janice Hahn failed to show up for the meeting. The drive to the Valley must have been too far around.

Bill Boyarsky writes an article for the Jewish Journal that is at best silly and at worst, racist. Boyarsky recalls liberal mostly senior, Jewish activists of 30 years ago who fought for rent control. With condo conversions rampant, Boyarsky posits that the current generation of mostly aged Jewish activists could give real firepower to Latino immigrants who want to fight for a government guarantee of housing. This is just silly because the Jewish community is not monolithic - many young Jewish families would benefit from the affordable housing many condo conversions would bring and many real estate developers happen to be Jewish themselves. This is just racist because Boyarsky implies until the good Jews come to town, Latino immigrants are SOL.

Mayor Sam's Blogbits for Monday

Bloated west end myopia once again rears its ugly head at the Westside White Guy's "blog." Citing an article in Variety about new movie theaters across the city, nary a mention of any of the theaters mentioned in the story outside WWG's home base.

More bits of blogs if you click read more!

A Santa Monica based development firm has put in a bid to lease and re-furbish the Queen Mary in Long Beach. Do they want to turn it into condos? No - the plan is to turn it into a retail-entertainment center.

Curbed LA has a few examples of "affordable" housing served up by the market. Good demonstration of letting the system work.

More of the drama with regards to the "departure" of Pomona City Manager Doug Dunlap. Foothill Cities Blog posts Dunlap's response to this post. He also states an alleged relationship with a female staffer was "plutonic." I don't know if that's Dunlap's mistake or Foothill Citites, but someone might want to use a term relating to an existing planet.

Sunday, April 29, 2007


contact info at www.zumadogg.com

Anonymous said...

I wish someone in this city had the balls to go after all the non profits who get tons of money saying they help the community. We know that a lot of them are (shady). They have executive directors who are paid $60-$70,000 drive nice cars and don't use the money they get for the people. Estrada Courts is a (less than efficient) organization. So are a lot of non profits in the area. Laura Chick has been asked many times to audit all the 501.3's non profits but is yet to do it. People would be shocked to learn the corruption with all the tax payer money. Many have donated to politicial campaigns.

(Zuma Dogg - Anonymous)

All non-profit organizations the City does business with must be run through a City audit, before grant money over the amount of $500 may be transferred.

To: Los Angeles City Controller Laura Chick
Fr: ZAP (Zuma's Action Plan)
Dt: April 30, 2007
Re: Audits, and the fact that we would like you to do some.

Dear Controller Chick,

It has recently come to my attention that the City provides grant money and waives "special event fees" to various non-profit organizations throughout the City of Los Angeles. Councilmember Jack Weiss in January of 2002 said that when you waive these fees you are effectively making a donation to the group.

Big ZD was concerned for the past year that "fee waivers" were being used for COMMERCIAL corporations and events like Academy Awards, Vanity Fair, Grammy, Emmy, TV/Radio Stations, NFL, MLB, all kinds of HUGE events making millions of dollars, that is earmarked for non-profit, open to the public, free events. Not commercialized, red carpet galas, where admission is charged, or you can't get in unless you're Tom Hanks or Zuma Dogg.

So after a few months of putting it "on the record" (with Matt Dowd, too) almost all, if not all have disappeared from the agenda. THANK YOU CITY COUNCIL! THAT BUGGED THE SH*T OUT OF ME.

HOWEVER, now ZD is onto far worse, Controller Chick. It's all these non-profit organizations the City fuels with "grant money". Well ZD has this new little "BAT COMPUTER" where I email the group, or name, or file/case number -- and they...I mean my "BAT COMPUTER" sends me back any shadiness. Only problem, it's an avalanche of shadiness.

Ms. Chick, I think the entire City is at risk of simply being shut-down for a total and complete audit by Arnold. He will have no choice. Someone else (you know who) will make HIM! Because we are living in such a litigeous society, and you continue to operate in a manner that contiunes to open the City up for massive legal challenges in MANY areas of City operation.

And if ZD sees it, POWERS THAT BE see it, too.

CITY HALL IS TOO CAUGHT UP. WATCH A MIAMI VICE MARATHON. THEY ARE SO DEEP IN IT THEY DON'T SEE IT...THEY'RE TOO COMFORTABLE...THEY FEEL TOO PROTECTED, BECAUSE IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY. EXCEPT WE ARE LIVING IN A NEW TECHNOLOGICAL ERA. And Zuma Dogg has an active network of people from across the City, and one heck of a "BAT COMPUTER". I found this ONE website that provides all the financial information and names associated with all of these non-profits the City does business with. And all I can say, is finding shadiness on this site, is easier than finding the mayor at a photo opportunity, instead of running the City.

Here's something I noticed about Connie Rice's "Advancement Project" the City paid a couple bucks to:

I was looking over Connie Rice's Advancement Project, since CM Hahn's response to the report was, "Enough studies, it's time for action." And I came across their mission statement:

Mission: Help resolve conflicts by crafting public policy solutions.

So I was wondering, for all the money spent on the studies, did they accomplish the mission? (RESOLVING CONFLICTS?) If so, where? Otherwise, can we withold payment until time such services are rendered?

Oh no...ZD has ANOTHER question...

Connie Rice's Advancement Project said..."We are equity advocates with a strong civil rights bent. In the Los Angeles office, we focus on making big public systems—mostly in Los Angeles County but statewide as needed—do a better job for low income residents, especially low income children and youth. We have played major roles in shifting several billion dollars of public resources toward low income families."


YIKES, IS THE CITY A SUCKER...Way to hustle the hustlas...that's big pimpin' on the realest, dough. The ink and paper you used for the report didn't cost but $5 at Office Depot. And you charged HOW much?

Huh...huh...huh..I gotta get me a W99, y'all!

And finally, I yeild the rest of this memo to my constituent, Anonymous. Mr. Anonymous...

Anonymous said...

I wish someone in this city had the balls to go after all the non profits who get tons of money saying they help the community. We know that a lot of them are corrupt. They have executive directors who are pad $60-$70,000 drive nice cars and don't use the money they get for the people. Estrada Courts is a corrupt organization. So are a lot of non profits in the area. Laura Chick N Shit has been asked many times to audit all the 501.3's non profits but is yet to do it. People would be shocked to learn the corruption with all the tax payer money. Many have donated to politicial campaigns.

Why METRO Needs to Change its Fares (by MTA)

Why Metro Needs to Change its Fares

For decades, taxpayers in Los Angeles County have been heavily subsidizing fares for Metro bus and rail riders. The subsidies rose sharply under a federal Consent Decree when a court-appointed Special Master ordered a massive expansion of bus service. That resulted in a $1.8 billion projected operating deficit for Metro over the next 10 years. In other words, Metro doesn’t have enough money to pay for the bus and rail service on the streets today.

But the deficit doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It threatens to choke off new mobility options for 10 million county residents no matter if they walk, bike, take a bus or train, carpool or drive a car or truck. Everyone, regardless of ethnicity and income, pays the sales taxes that fund our transportation program no matter what transportation mode they use, so we all have a stake in the fare subsidy dilemma.

Los Angeles County taxpayers are not getting what they expected when they voted twice for local sales taxes intended to further modernize and expand public transit and improve streets and highways that benefit the vast majority of county residents.

Last November, voters overwhelmingly approved a nearly $20 billion state bond measure to build highway and public transit projects. Metro’s massive operating deficit is siphoning funds that could be leveraged with that bond money or other state and federal dollars to fast track critical relief on our congested highways and transit system.

This is what drove us to propose a major fare restructuring. We simply can’t continue business as usual and still provide quality service to our customers.

Although the base Metro cash fare is $1.25, the average Metro rider pays only 58 cents a boarding. This is due to deep discounts for the various pass holders. Fares cover just 24 percent of the cost of a ride; 76 percent is subsidized by taxpayers. That compares to 1988 when taxpayers subsidized 56 percent of each boarding passenger’s ride.

It’s simple economics; our revenues don’t cover our costs and if we don’t do something now, we’re just postponing the inevitable and making the problem worse for the future.

Metro has diminished its reserves, slashed more than 500 administrative positions in the past five years, reined in its workers compensation costs and aggressively pursued every avenue to raise more revenue including blanketing our buses and rail stations with ads – but it’s still not enough.
We recognize higher fares will be difficult for our transit customers. It’s the last thing we want but we have forestalled acting for far too long. At this point if we don’t do the fare change, it will be much worse for our patrons because cuts in service will be more painful, inconveniencing many and leaving some riders stranded.

If the Metro Board adopts the proposed fare changes, the average passenger fare will still be only 86 cents per ride, much lower than what passengers pay in other comparable markets. A daily pass costs $9 in Boston, $8 in Atlanta and $7 in New York City, and many carriers already charge $2 base fares. A gallon of gas now costs about four times what Metro riders will pay, so Metro will continue to be a mobility bargain.

Despite rising costs for new equipment, fuel, labor, and other operating expenses, Metro has maintained one of the lowest fare structures in the United States even as we undertook the greatest expansion of service in our history. Over the past decade, under a federal court Consent Decree, Metro purchased more than 2,000 new clean air buses and added more than 1 million annual bus revenue service hours.

Metro ridership in 2006 rose almost 6 percent over the previous year, double the national average. It’s unfortunate that at a time of such high transit demand for our services, Metro will not be in a position to continue serving that demand without additional revenue. We’re faced with the difficult but very real choice between charging higher fares or providing less service.

History tells us that customers are willing to pay more as long as the quality and level of service remains high. The fare change is this agency’s commitment to deliver the service our patrons have come to rely upon.

It’s our responsibility to provide the greatest level of service we can to our customers while operating within our means. That’s the only way we can fulfill Metro’s commitment to our patrons and taxpayers.



PUBLIC NOTICE:The Mt. Washington Local Issues Committee will be hearing the Furness Ave. development of 22 houses at the next meeting. Friends of the Southwest Museum Coalition, reported that the Coalition has engaged an architect on alternative plans for development at the Southwest Museum. (Really! That's great! I say build a casino! ZD loves casinos!)

And here are some other fun topics for discussion on this SUNDAY OPEN THREAD.

Friends of the Southwest Museum Coalition
Mt Washington Development
Jose Huizar
Marcos Aguilar
That big CRA Bond for Boyle Hts.
Wyvernwood Apts (1,187 units) in Boyle Hts.
Taylor Yard Project
Don Lippman
Ed Reyes
Abraham Paez
Eric Garcetti
Adelante Eastside Committee

I hope Jan Perry didn't call me off topic! Maybe some of the names on this list should tell that rancid bitch to keep her pompous mouth SHUT when Zuma Dogg is talking and let him talk for the two minuites he showed up for. AND NEXT TIME YOU CALL ME OFF TOPIC YOU BETTER MAKE SURE YOU DIDN'T VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW, JAN! HOW SURE ARE YOU JAN? I guess we'll have to let a Federal judge decide. And Herb, next time 500 people show up to deliver a messgae over your BULLSHIT (LACK OF) HOUSING POLICY try and be more sure how the message is being received.


AND LAURA CHICK...I've been hearing the demands from RED SPOT and others over demands for audits. WE'LL NOW YOU'RE ON ZUMA DOGG'S LIST, AND YOU'RE ABOUT TO GET SOME "HUGE" NAME RECOGNITION ON TV 35 and the radio! (Hope ANY publicity is good publicity.) NOW GO RUN SOME USEFUL AUDITS.



Saturday, April 28, 2007

How Much Would You Award Someone Locked Up for 2 Months Because LAPD Refused to check DNA that proved your innocence? (Geragos & Geragos takes case)

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION SETTLEMENT ALERT: Hey 15 CMs -- here's one that will be coming to a closed session hearing, sometime soon. YIKES!!! THIS IS WAAAAAAAAAAAY WORSE THAN DOG FOOD...EVEN "IF" HE ATE IT!!!

When Zuma Dogg sees, "Geragos and Geragos" on a civil lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and LAPD officers, LARRY KING ain't the only one paying attention. (Even though ZD is firsrt to report about the lawsuit, here.

How Much Would You Award Someone Locked Up for 2 Months Because LAPD Refused to check DNA that proved your innocence? AKA:

ADRIAN AVEDISSIAN, Plaintiff vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; 1-25 inclusive (LAPD), Defendants


Plaintiff falsely accused of rape. After having spent more than two months in jail, the DNA sample taken of Plaintiff, on the day he was arrested, conclusively proved Plaintiff's assertions from the very first day, that he was innocent of this horrendous false allegation.


CIty Encourages More MTA Use, While MTA Proposes Fare Hikes That Will Discourage Use Among Those Who Need It Most


CAPTAIN JACK SPARROW: READ MY COMMENTS FROM 7:40pm-on. The info is flying in like a NYSE ticker scroll...it's like an IM of info-dump..So check the comment section of this thread for "ZD's data dump of meaningless info. Batman Voice: (Distressed, gasping)...NEED -- MORE -- CHRONIC...to help decode...avalanche...of names, and numbers.

MTA: First of all, before the MTA rate hike info, a Zuma Dogg fan in her twenties, working at a coffee house, who takes the bus, already heard Board of Superdumassadvisors wants to turn Olympic (and other roads) into one way streets. At first when the chick complained to Big Z, I pulled out the Deming talk and reminded her, that it would improve systematic efficiency.

HOWEVER, SHE reminded ME, that if a bus is only going one way down Olympic...if you need to be dropped off from the OTHER way, you will have to take a PICO bus from the other direction, then walk the HUGE distance between Olympic and Pico -- and THAT, my friend is a bigger deal breaker than a fare hike. That is WAY too long of a distance to expect someone to add to their walk to and from the bus stop.

THANKS TO THE MAYOR SAM READER WHO CLARIFIED THIS POINT: Zuma, both Pico and Olympic would have 2 "contraflow" lanes to allow for two-way bus traffic at all times. [Yeah, yeah...that means Zuma Dogg SUPPORTS the idea of this poor man's subway to the sea!]

AND NOW, onto the MTA fare increase:

Today's LA Times reports that after a decade of being largely restricted from raising bus fares by a federal judge, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is proposing a sweeping series of fare hikes that some experts worry will discourage commuters from using mass transit. [WHY, DO OTHER EXPERTS SAY THE FARE HIKE WILL ENCOURAGE "MORE" USE?]

The hikes would establish some of the highest bus fares in the country. The basic fare would rise to $2 from $1.25. About 87% of all MTA passengers use some form of bus or rail pass, which would see larger price increases of up to 400% over the next 20 months. [NO PROBLEM, MOST PEOPLE CAN EASILY AFFORD THAT...BUT THOSE PEOPLE DON'T TAKE THE BUS. THE PEOPLE WHO 'DO' TAKE THE BUS CAN'T REALLY AFFORD IT.]

MTA officials say that the hike is needed to help cover rising operating costs and that they have already cut 500 jobs. Without the higher fares, they say the agency would have to slash service. [OH MY GOODNESS -- THE CITY IS PLANNING IT'S ENTIRE HOUSING EFFORT AROUND THE USE OF MTA, AND THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT SLASHING SERVICE?!?!?]

But there are growing questions among transportation experts about whether steep fare increases make sense at a time when L.A.'s roads are more clogged than ever. [OF COURSE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.]

The proposed MTA fare hike comes as San Francisco examines a radical reduction in fares to encourage more use of mass transit.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom last month ordered a study of eliminating bus and streetcar fares to determine whether free fares would get more commuters out of their cars.

Some urban planners as well as the L.A. Bus Riders Union have proposed that the MTA sharply reduce fares — to 50 cents — or make them even free.

They argue that lower fares would encourage more people to use mass transit, reducing traffic and pollution.


"It really puts all the burden on the poorest, who are really relying on the bus," Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, chairwoman of the UCLA Department of Urban Planning, said of the fare hike.

But others worry the higher fares are most likely to drive away more affluent riders who take the Gold Line, Orange Line and Red Line into downtown from the suburbs.

A rider who has a car may react to a fare hike by saying, "Oh, forget it. I got the car. I've paid the insurance," said Brian Taylor, director of UCLA's Institute of Transportation Studies.

But without a fare increase, bus service would need to be cut by one-third, said Marc Littman, an MTA spokesman.


You are gonna slow down the passage of new X-Box units to Wal-Mart in Boise, Idaho and that's gonna piss off George Bush...so get some Federal help too. Because the pollution level in that 710 area is a national crisis.


We need affordable housing---but not the Mayor's kind

Responding to Zuma and his phalanx of professors, politicos, developers, contractors...

Of course, we need more affordable housing in LA. But we don't need the Mayor's kind---which taxes the people who already own homes for the sake of getting a small handful of service workers into homes, but really hands most of the taxpayer money over to developers and contractors.

Professor Vasishth---get your hands out of my wallet.

Zuma, it's not about living in a too-free free market society, as the professor might suggest, and it's not about recognizing an enlightened need to violate the way the market works. The reason the market doesn't work is that it's been so gamed into not working that most developers don't even deal with it at all---they simply ply their trade elsewhere. And they lie to us when they say "growth is inevitable"---because they only seem to permit the kind of developments that court growth.

The reason we don't have more affordable housing in Los Angeles is because since 1999 City Council has only incentivized developers to provide limited supplies of it for city renters, while providing more of it for people who don't even live here. They have brought us various stripes of conversion moratoria that keeps starter condos off the market. They have permitted ever costlier and costlier new homes as developers decide they can't build in the City without making the margins higher and higher. They have made sure LA ever remains a renter's town, with the renters getting ever more disgruntled, and the starter homes further and further out of reach, and all the new homeowners ironically coming from outside the City.

Worse, this set of pols have insisted that "growth is a fact of the City" while only permitting the kind of projects that perpetuate growth. You think anyone who doesn't already own a home is buying a million-plus condo? You think anyone who currently owns a home in LA wants to swap it for a downtown condo? No---the City is courting growth.

Any who's buying those places that people flip, anyway? It's people from out of town, people who come from places with strong currencies...like Seoul...or Irvine...

Before it does anything else---the City should disincentivize, even punish, flipping. Because flipping brings in people from elsewhere, always. It contributes to growth.

Zuma, Affordable Housing as the Mayor's team is putting it out turns affordable housing into a lottery. It perpetuates all the growth from out of town while only letting a lucky few sneak in---while the displaced others are obliged to tiptoe out of town. There is no way that the government can incentivize enough developers to bring us enough new affordable housing that's going to make a meaningful dent. Our current set of politicians have surrendered completely to the few remaining developers who are willing to work with them.

We have tons of market based solutions already ready to go in the housing market. We have the best prefab designers in the country right here. We have microhousing all ready to go. We have developers servicing the workforce sector all ready to work with City-granted 99-year land leases, to take the high price of land off the table. But the government has to figure out how to get developers interested to build these things, not just to build the kind of housing they want to build.

Don't blame the free market, Zuma. We don't have one in housing, and we never will. Housing in an urban environment is always the most politicized economic activity.

The City government's role is like a bridle, and the City's housing market is like a horse. The bridle can make the horse go fast, or make it stand still, or even hurt the horse that is the City's development. Since the last good thing the bridle did---the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance---it's been all harmful to the horse, ever since. It's been all bad news for the people who actually live here, ever since.

It's not about a free market. It's about creating the kind of policy that turns housing into a realizable dream for the many, not a fake lottery for the few.


Everyone knows about the traffic problems along the 710 freeway.

Well Mayor Antonio Villariagosa has a plan to help ease traffic congestion of this "Diesel Death Zone" as CM Janice Hahn called it this week. Let's build a connector road, and run the traffic through the residential area, near several schools and lots of homes. THEN, we can build a row of high density housing (with that air quality and traffic, it will probably be "Section 8" Housing) along this new connector road, as well. That way, we can make money from every angle possible. And when everyone is dead from the pollution, we'll be flying in freshly squeezed orange juice onto a private island, like Eli Broad and Richard Riordan. (Remember THAT one?)

You see, Antonio Villaraigosa CARES about Alhambra...and wants to help ease their traffic pain. So he wants to construct a four lane connector road off the 710 that will run through a residential area into El Sereno. (Oh, it's only El Sereno -- F*CK 'EM...I thought it was near Eagle Rock!)

Tony is salavating at the mouth over the road he wants to build on Caltrans property owned by the State, located about a 1/8-1/4 mile from the LA/Alhambra border on Valley Blvd/710.

The road is going to be proposed to serve Alhambra for Freemont and Valley mitigation. However, Alhambra is against it themselves, as is Pasedena, S. Pasedena and community groups in L.A.

They are in favor of a proposed underground tunnel to be built, that SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) is behind. AND THAT IS A FEDERAL PROJECT, so Antonio doesn't get his grubby mitts on that peice of the constuction pie. SO FORGET ABOUT THE WISHES OF THE REGION (HEY TONY, ASK DAG (Design Advisory Group) which project they favor -- the Federally built "underground tunnel", or you hack connector road, that 5-6 schools in the area (El Sereno/Emery Park/Alhambra) are against, doctors in the area are against and THE SIERRA CLUB IS AGAINST.

All of because the amount of pollution you will be parading through this residential area. Then to make matters (and traffic worse) people say you will build Section 8 housing along the new road. AND, Oh yeah, T. [CLICK "READ MORE" FOR THE REST]

I hope this is NOT something you would let your OWN kids live near. (I would be forced to call social services on you for negligence, if so.) But it's O.K. for the kind of people who live in the area you want to build in near.

SO TO RECAP: Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wants to spend $10 million to build a connector road, to help Alhambra, but Alhambra doesn't want it and will file a lawsuit after the EIR report. And remember Tony, ZD would like to remind you, you stated publicly that you would not build this road, unless El Sereno wants it...AND ZD, "Voice of the Pueblos" says THEY DON'T!!! So best back up off they tip, for the simple fact you on it like a gnat on a dogg's d*ck, bitch!


Contact: zumadogg@netzero.com, (310) 928-7544

"ZAP" (Zuma's Action Plan) is cure for "COST" (Constant Obssesive Survey Trauma), caused by "CON" (Connie's Ongoing Narration)

Why We Need Affordable Housing, Even Though We Live In A Free Market Society

by Zuma Dogg

You can say "screw em...it's called restoration and cleaning up the neighborhood and raising property values and profits for owners." And ZD used to engage the Mayor Sam philosphy on this matter, as well. (Why does the Charter mandate affordable housing requirements on City projects (even though they unlawfully ignore it), and why should the City even get involved, after all, we live in a free market society -- and those bums can go get a better, higher-paying job?!?!

Here's why. We need people to "clean out toilets" as the mayor brought to our attention. Plus, we need teachers, and police, and trash collectors, and cooks, and office workers, and assistants, bus drivers, and baggage handlers, and a lot of other lower paying jobs that the community needs to continue to tick.

Ashwani Vasishth (Department of Urban Studies and Planning, California State University, Northridge, who I interviewed for my SCAG article is the guy who really drove it home for me, during our phone conversations. He says, "You just can't have the rich living downtown in expensive lofts and the poor people living further and further out. You can only have a successful downtown if you have rich and poor living in the same area."

The commute is killing the community. Today's Daily Breeze says, "Jammed roads are people's top concern -- gangs number two among a survey of 1400 Angelinos." And jammed roads are what occurs when you have a downtown metropolis where you remember to apporve the high density project, but forget to remember the number of required affordable housing unit to be factored into the project.

Then you have that "The Downtown Destroyer"CM Jan Perry call me off topic for mentioning that the City is ignoring affordable housing requirements as mandated by the City Charter, during my public comment on an agenda item about an "affordable housing" program. The dispicable bitch, who will now be having the privilidge of prving me off topic in Federal Court, missed the point because she was too busy being pompus and ignorant and accepting campaign contributions.